First half thoughts
EA is EA and nothing can change that sadly…(insert miracle here)

About Tomb Raider, I like the game, but since I am playing it on a PC, it is obvious, that it is a console port. Not a bad port, but not excellent, as it is too damn easy.
The main problem I have with the game is, if you want to enjoy the game (my opinion), play it on hard and you are only allowed to use the wrap the gun stock in cloth, so your shoulder dosent pop out, as everyone can do that, not mod the whole gun, from a smg to a ak 47…oh and ammo…it is everywhere-_-
Also, use a controller, makes the game way more fun.

Also, you can have 4 weapons on you and can only see the one you have selected, but the gun is always on your belt? I would rather see her carry only a gun, bow and droppable smg or shotgun.

Best part of the game defenetly are the interactions with the enviroment. One scene, you have to blow up a barrel, which is leaking gasoline and I started fireing at it. Seeing it didn’t work, I stopped and Lara said, “I was sure that was gonna work”.

at this point with the reception of the sony conference along with how valve is consistently handeling indie devs in (arguably) the most optimal way possible it would be irresponsible of microsoft to not make the console approachable to indie devs. I would like to think that I am not alone in saying that I will be going where most of the indies go this coming generation.

Second part thoughts
Harrison, I was exactly like you, but with comics

If the 1 hour thing was actually used, i don’t hink anybody would want to play most of the games and I would not want to play Mass Effect, as the first one was really bad in the beginning and even the short time I worked as a game tester, even after 1 year, the game was not ready for a public play test. Fun fact, the game was supposed to be released last year durring summer and it is still not out.

Here is a idea for a “segment”. Whenever you get a story, comic… to read, Josh has to read it and seriously, call it Fuck you theatre, as I laughed my ass of. Not so much the story, but Joshes way of reading is just way too funny :D

In response to the Kojima article, I think it would be a good idea because, while I agree it would be a good amount of time and resources to gamble on what is basically a pitch, it would be a better alternative to losing quadrouple that on a full product that was a failed idea from day one.

We could potentially avoid a lot of the nightmare scenarios we’ve been seeing in the industry over the past few years.

It’s an interesting idea and reminds me of a discussion about beta testing and the “why games need it” If you remember back when epic released bulletstorm before releasing Gears3 they offered a free demo of the multiplayer of gears (If you pre-ordered Gears3 or purchased Bulletstorm you received a code that worked for like 2 months before the game released) This was to test server stress and to iron out certain bugs in the multiplayer structure. It really helped to keep people talking about the games upcoming release and promoted buzz about the gameplay. all the while they skirted around the terminology of calling it a “beta test” but more of a pre order bonus.

The idea sounds good on pen and paper but not in execution. I can see it working on smaller projects, but not the large scale ones that the Kojima may have meant it for. The problem is that game development requires large amounts of iteration before it gets anywhere close to good. By forcing a team to focus on a “pitch” i.e. a “vertical slice” (which I have seen on projects I’ve worked on before), it takes team members away from focusing on the final project.

There will be too much attention spent on trying to woo the vocal minority (because you know they’re going to be the loudest to such pitches) as opposed to just making a good game. Game devs are gamers too, they want to make good stuff and unfortunately, it’s 9 times out of 10 out of their control. The publisher, marketers, shareholders tend to muddy up the original vision (happens in film and TV all the time) and unfortunately, the gamers are on the receiving end of a poorly handled product. If you add another party to voice their opinion too early in the dev cycle, you are killing something before it could even be good. I agree with Brandon and Harrison’s assessment with “Mass Effect”. I bet you at year 1 that game was barely a creative fetus, if unplayable.

I see it too often in game development where the 1st year, or heck the 2nd year for big projects are still in a sorry state of things, BUT they end up pulling it together in the end. I guarantee you wouldn’t have half the good games out there, especially sleeper hits like “Shadow and the Colossus”. The main reason is that you have many moving parts in game, not just art, but programming, design, etc. There will be systems not up yet, pipelines just barely developed. By forcing a 1 year pitch for a studio is basically encouraging an “E3 trailer atmosphere” where everyone needs to come up with *something* even if it may not used at all to represent the final product, and even worse will not be use-able in the long run for the project. That hurts both the developers, who’d rather focus on making something good, and the gamers, who will get their expectations shot down and get an inferior product.

If there are demos, I would much rather them be in the “beta” phase of the cycle so gamers who are unfamiliar with the dev cycle will be more understanding than if they played a Year 1 broken, half-formed test product. It’ll be more constructive for both parties.